Embassies - Are they necessary?

[therealUT]

In light of the astounding technological revolutions of the past century, providing us with the ability to communicate face-to-face with others across the globe, are foreign embassies still necessary?

If so, why?

If not, then would it be reasonable to state that placing any personnel in any foreign embassy is placing them in an unnecessarily risky situation?

 

[lawgator1]

I think they are routinely used for intelligence gathering.

 

[milohimself]

I think there might be something to be said for having extraterritoriality in other nations that are open to it (I realize this is not necessarily how it works)

 

[therealUT]

I think they are routinely used for intelligence gathering.

Seems like a strong reason; however, if this is the only strong reason to have an embassy, then should it not open up the embassy to any and all attacks, which would all, presumably, be justified under customary international law?

 

[MG1968]

Seems like a strong reason; however, if this is the only strong reason to have an embassy, then should it not open up the embassy to any and all attacks, which would all, presumably, be justified under customary international law?

you would think so, but the US maintained an embassy in both the Soviet Union and East Germany for decades. Usually, when a spook was caught red-handed, he or she was declared "persona non grata" and kicked out.

 

[hndog609]

I think a more interesting question might be are they "worth having" since there is nothing I can think of that would reach the level of "necessary".

 

[davethevol]

Obviously the CIA operates out of them, so they are very important. Also, seeing how the CIA isn't branch of the armed services (even though they work with the military and conduct strikes) they aren't fair game.

 

[therealUT]

Obviously the CIA operates out of them, so they are very important. Also, seeing how the CIA isn't branch of the armed services (even though they work with the military and conduct strikes) they aren't fair game.

Anyone conducting espionage is fair game according to customary international law; thus, if the only reason nations keep up this game of brick-and-mortar embassies, when all the actual work could be taken care of in virtual assemblies and conferences, then the brick-and-mortar embassies would be fair game.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm all for canning them. Hell, just the cost savings makes it the right call.

 

[GAVol]

Anyone conducting espionage is fair game according to customary international law; thus, if the only reason nations keep up this game of brick-and-mortar embassies, when all the actual work could be taken care of in virtual assemblies and conferences, then the brick-and-mortar embassies would be fair game.

it is a rather antiquated way of doing business.

 

[volinbham]

Antiquated yes but there is something to be said for having a live presence to understand/communicate with the local situation.

 

[YorkVol]

1. There are more effective means of gathering intel, but they are riskier and difficult to sustain without the 'safety' you get inside the embassy. Certainly feasible to collect without them.

2. Presidential envoys play a larger role than posted ambassadors for most critical matters, so that is another reason to get rid of them.

3. Replacing the admin support functions for Americans abroad, legitimate foreign travel to the US, etc would be hard to handle without the embassies and consulates. Business visas, student visas, immigration etc would have to be done differently. Could be done, but would require wholesale rethinking.